Thursday, 30 June 2011

The question: What is secularism?

What is the relationship between secularism, the state policy; andsecularisation, the social process? Most conversations tend to confuse the two, moving from one to the other. However, we don't really have a clear map of how the two are related to each other. Does the adoption of secularism as a policy lead to the process of secularisation in society? Or is it the other way round? Is it possible that groups such as the Islamists who oppose secularism may be, inadvertently perhaps, facilitating secularisation?

The general understanding about the relationship between secularism and secularisation is based on a reified reading of European history. The potted version would run something like this: "Once the Catholic church was challenged there was a lot of fighting and eventually people decided that tolerance is the best way forward. They also realised that the most convenient way to operationalise tolerance would be to separate church and state, public and private spheres." There are many problems with this narrative, including questions of historical accuracy, as well as immense variations and reversals in the European experience. However, it is important here to note that in this version secularism and secularisation seem to have developed together.

Paradoxically, for the world beyond Europe the policy prescriptive has been the opposite. Since the late colonial period – and particularly for predominantly Muslim societies today – the policy dogma has been that the adoption of secularism as a state project will lead to the process of secularisation. But secularism as a separation of church (religion) and state does not make ready sense in societies where there was no hierarchical, structured church that had inherited an empire's state apparatus as the Roman Catholic church had in Europe. In the various versions of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc there has been no one clerical figure vested with the kind of power and authority that the pope excersised over domains now assumed within the modern state.

So we cannot assume that the lack of secularisation within these societies is due to some "lateness" on their part. They did not secularise in the way that Europe did because they did not need to. Branding them as backward was part of a colonial project but not one that we have to subscribe to today without evidence to support it. At the same time as acknowledging this, we also need to recognise that over the last century something new has happened that has led to much critical thinking about the relationship between religion and the state in these societies. This catalyst for political and intellectual tumult is the modern state. The modern state with its interest in managing individuals rather than communities tends to politicise various kinds of identities, many of which had been assumed to be private/apolitical in pre-modern contexts, for instance, gender relations, sexual preferences, ethnic and of course, religious identities.

The Islamists, or those within the larger category of Muslim fundamentalists who focus on taking over the state, are one of the range of responses generated within societies grappling with the modern state bound up with the legacy of colonialism.

Islamists are not primarily militant nor pre-modern. They are modernist in the structure of their thought, in their organisation – indeed Jamaat-e-Islami, an influential Islamist party in south Asia, was organised on the Leninist model of a cadre-based vanguard party – and in the categories and political structures that they engage with.

Islamism arose in early 20th century at a time when the state was the dominant paradigm for organising political energies. Political movements of the time from communist to fascist to liberal nationalist, and including the Islamists, were focused on taking over the state to transform society.

The Islamists are vehement in their public insistence on dislodging the idea of secularism as universal, claiming it to be a parochial, European experience – with some justification. Yet, the process of raising these and other questions about the definitions of public and private in the political arena, the fierce competition amongst Islamists to provide a definitive answer and the very structure of Islamist thought that emphasises an individual relationship with religious texts has led to a deep, conscious and critical questioning of the role of religion – a secularisation – in predominantly Muslim polities.

Secularisation is not just the increase or decrease in visible markers of religiosity or in church attendance, but also a fundamental shift in religious belief towards rationalisation and objectification. The Protestant reformers were not arguing for less religion, they were asking for more – for a continuously religious life against the Catholic cycles of sin and repentance. Yet, as Max Weber's influential work suggests, they ended up rationalising and secularising. To say all this is not to suggest that Pakistani Islamists will have exactly the same impact as the German Protestants. There can be little doubt that they will produce a very different subject and citizen because of the disparity in context.

But we can at least acknowledge that we need to understand the relationship between secularism and secularisation more clearly before we can build a universal definition of secularism. I am not arguing here for abandoning a universal definition, just for a more truly universally grounded and methodical one.

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Viscount Astor, the peer married to David Cameron's mother-in-law, has called for increased representation of 'other churches and faiths' in the House of Lords.

Viscount Astor says that the Church of England's privileged position in the House of Lords should be diminished

Three weeks after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, condemned the “frightening” Coalition, David Cameron’s wider family is lending him support. .

Viscount Astor, who is married to the Prime Minister’s mother-in-law, Annabel, has made a rare speech in the House of Lords, calling for an end to the Church of England’s privileged position in public life.

Lord Astor proposed that in any reform of the Upper House, the Church should lose its unique position on the Benches Spiritual. “Other churches and faiths should be represented here,” he said.

The intervention by William Astor, who married the mother of Samantha Cameron in 1976, is significant as he has kept a low political profile since Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party in 2005. Astor was a junior minister in Sir John Major’s government.

In April, The Sunday Telegraph disclosed that Tory officials had drawn up a paper which called for a wide range of different churches to be represented once reforms to the Lords are carried out. This is, however, the first indication that the suggestion has Cameron’s support.

Currently 26 Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords, but Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is drawing up a draft bill setting out wholesale changes to the Lords that are expected to include provisions for hundreds of existing peers, including the bishops, to be evicted while at least 80 per cent of new members are elected.

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Has secularism masked empirical complexities that would help us understand the relationship between religion and modernity?

The question: What is secularism?

Religion occupies a unique place in our understanding of modern society and nation-statehood. Having played a particular role in the formation of the European nation-state system itself, religion has had the dubious privilege of being considered somehow unlike other kinds of social practice and organisation, at once special and especially dangerous. Real modernity must be democratic, runs the logic; and real democracy must be secular. While religious experience and practice seemed to be declining in many parts of the world, this vision was untroubled. Today, however, it has become commonplace to recognise the vitality of some forms of religion – and, what is more, its vitality in precisely those democratic contexts that it was once considered to be anathema to. The impact of this shift is hard to overstate. It amounts to a dethroning of one of the longest-held and deepest-seated aspects of modern understandings and identities. It has led to one of the most profound shifts in general and academic thought about what modernity means and how it can be conducted most progressively. What this does not mean, however, is that the notion of secularism is dead. It means rather that we've noticed that secularism was something we were taking for granted, that we have assumed knowledge about its nature and the conditions it relies upon that we really don't have. Hence, a renewed focus on religion gives rise to a renewed focus on secularism as well. The idea of secularism has its roots in western experience and intellectual traditions, but has nevertheless travelled widely. It has sometimes travelled with colonialists but often by virtue of being, as Chris Hann, director of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, has put it, "a good idea". But has its success as a global concept masked empirical complexities that would help us understand the relationship between religion and modernity in general? Speaking at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna with Hann, the historian Dipesh Chakrabarty has suggested that Indian history challenges western conceptions at their core: given that India became "modern" without it, do we in fact need the concept of "secularism" at all? And even in Europe, the most secularised continent birthplace of the secularisation thesis, things are more complicated than they appear. Weber's idea of Protestantism as a secularising force is upset by noticing the ways in which Protestantism has thrived in modernity, even as it has helped propel its course. Evangelism, in particular, has been involved in the generation of new forms of cultural materialisation, and scholars are beginning to emphasise how important such movements have been as a motor behind the development of modern communications methods and technologies. One implication of this is that, if secularism is in fact a complicated and variable phenomenon, we need to consider whether our understanding of "religion" is of a real existing thing or is a particular construction arising from a certain secularist outlook. Evidence for this is that our notions of religion do not always work well outside of a European context. People are increasingly discussing, in fact, the various things that a secularist framework projects on to religion – with the underlying concern being how these false understandings impinge upon religion. But equally important is the possibility that false ideas of religion associated with local notions and experiences of secularism are what our secular apparatus is built upon. If we are designing secularism – our secularist law, policy, community practice and so on – based upon a false notion of religion, we may end up with an empty secularism on our hands. It may be that, in some ways, we are encumbered with such a secularism already. Our energies have been very focused on religion for some time now, but we are seeing a shift in interest, from religion to secularism and to non-religion. Religion still dominates research agendas, media commentary, policy debate however, and it is important to be clear that this imbalance means we are only looking at part of the picture and addressing only some of the questions that need to be asked.

Monday, 27 June 2011

As the (English) Education Bill progresses through the House of Lords, NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood and campaigns manager Stephen Evans this week held talks with schools Minister Nick Gibb MP and his ministerial team.

Minister of State for Schools, Nick Gibb MP

The intensive round table meeting focussed on legislation or proposed legislation which discriminates against teachers who are regarded in religious schools as being of the “wrong faith” or not having a religion.

Keith Porteous Wood commented: “It was a constructive, productive and cordial meeting. We used as the basis of our discussion legal opinion backing up the key amendments we have had tabled by honorary associates. The Minister and his team listened carefully to the points we made, and we gave them a great deal to think about. Mr Gibb is already aware that we've formally complained about a number of issues in this area to the European Commission as being in breach of an EU directive; and Brussels is clearly taking them seriously.”

The dialogue with the ministerial team will continue as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.

Keith said: “We would like to put on record our thanks to honorary associate peers for their tireless enthusiasm and magnificent help in putting down amendments to the Bill – on teacher employment, collective worship, school transport and cohesion.”

Saturday, 25 June 2011

Governor Andrew Cuomo's bill to give gay couples the right to wed was approved by New York lawmakers, making the U.S. state the sixth and most-populous to legalize same-sex marriage.

Spectators in the Senate gallery erupted in cheers and tears after the Republican-controlled body voted 33-29 last night to approve the measure. Four Republicans joined 29 of 30 Democrats voting in favor after amendments were added to boost protections for religious institutions. The Democratic- controlled Assembly passed the amendments earlier in the night and the original bill 80-63 last week.

"What this state said today brings this discussion of marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters in Albany following the vote. "It's a powerful message all across the nation, no doubt, that this is the direction to go and the time to do it is now and it is achievable."

Cuomo signed the bill less than two hours after the vote, meaning same-sex couples will be able to marry in New York in 30 days. The 53-year-old Democrat made marriage equality one of three priorities in his first six months in office. The Legislature approved his property-tax cap last night and an ethics law for public officials on June 3.

"This was a period of historic progress on all fronts," Cuomo said. "We really did what we said we were going to do."

Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as does Washington, D.C., according to the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, which advocates equal rights for gay, bisexual and transgender people. New York, along with Maryland, recognizes such marriages from other jurisdictions. With 19.4 million residents, New York is the third most-populous state.

'Overwhelming'

"It was historic, it was overwhelming," said Allen Gosser, a 45-year-old wildlife biologist from Albany, who witnessed the vote with his husband Tom, whom he married in Massachusetts. "We are very grateful. Just a lot of emotions and passion."

Negotiations over the amendments had stalled the measure for nearly two weeks and helped keep lawmakers in session beyond the scheduled end of June 20.

Religious organizations and not-for-profits with religious affiliations won't be required to "provide services, accommodation, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of marriage," the bill says. Any such refusal "shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against" the organizations.

Invalidated

The entire act would be invalidated if a court strikes down any part of it, the bill says.

Cuomo met with gay-rights advocates, delivered speeches and held private conferences with legislators in a bid to build momentum for the measure in the face of vocal opposition from Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan and other traditional-marriage supporters. A change of heart last week from three Democrats and two Republicans who helped defeat a similar bill in 2009 seemed to signal a vote was imminent. Cuomo had said that he wouldn't push for a vote unless he was confident it would pass.

The National Organization of Marriage, which has lobbied against the measure, said it would double a prior pledge to at least $2 million to vote out of office in 2012 the Republicans who helped pass it.

"The Republican party has torn up its contract with the voters who trusted them in order to facilitate Andrew Cuomo's bid to be president," Brian Brown, president of the Washington- based non-profit, said yesterday in a statement. "Selling out your principles to get elected is wrong. Selling out your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb."

Friday, 24 June 2011

I’ve spotted this apology to the victims of child sex abuse on the website of the Diocese of Westminster; it’s from Fr David Myers, British Provincial of the Rosminian order which permitted Fr Kit Cunningham (above) and other priests to assault little boys in their schools in England and Africa.

I apologise without reservation on behalf of the Rosminian brethren in the UK to all those who have suffered. Such abuse was a grievous breach of trust to them and to their families. We are appalled by what was done to them.
I and all my brethren are deeply shocked at what has happened and acknowledge our inadequate response. We are committed to the pastoral care and support of those who have suffered abuse and to the procedures laid down by the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission.

Well, yes, Father, I’m sure you and your brethren were deeply shocked, particularly at the revelation that the loveable late Fr Kit committed unspeakable paedophile crimes. But you’ve known about all this for a long time, haven’t you? You knew about it when you – David Myers – preached a sermon at Kit’s memorial service, though you said not a word to the congregation. You knew about it when the Rosminians declined to pay compensation to the victims, on the grounds that (a) you didn’t have the money and (b) there were better uses for it anyway. Why did you wait for the BBC documentary to be aired before you apologised publicly?
I know more about this affair than has been made public. There are victims who have not yet come forward. I hope you and your order get taken to the cleaners by the victims’ lawyers, I really do.

Thursday, 23 June 2011

Wilders, 47, faced five counts of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims and immigrants

Far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been acquitted by a court in Amsterdam where he was on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, has described Islam as a "fascist ideology", comparing the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. He was acquitted on all five charges that were pressed against him.The judge on Thursday said that Wilders' statements were "rude and condescending" but not a criminal offence according to Dutch law."The bench finds that your statements are acceptable within the context of the public debate," the judge told Wilders, who has been on trial in the Amsterdam regional court since last October.

Wilders has said he has a "problem with Islamic tradition, culture, [and] ideology; not with Muslim people".The judge interpreted Wilders' remarks as challenging Islam as an ideology, which is not a criminal offence in the Netherlands. "[…] although gross and degenerating, it did not give rise to hatred," the judge said.Wilders supporters applauded and he smiled as he left the courtroom.Freedom of speechA collection of minority groups that view Wilders' comments as having overstepped the boundaries of free speech first pressed charges in 2007; however, the Dutch public prosecution refused to pursue Wilders, saying it did not believe in a successful outcome to the case.In 2009 an Amsterdam appeals court overturned that decision and ordered an investigation into "Fitna"
("Discord" in Arabic) - a short film Wilders produced on alleged Islamic extremism.The case against Wilders started in January 2010, but then collapsed following claims that the judges were biased. It was re-started a month later.Wilders' supporters labelled the case a left-wing conspiracy and a head-on attack on freedom of expression in the Netherlands.On the other side of the spectrum, anti-Wilders groups warned the plaintiffs of the consequences of giving the politician a platform, fearing it would only raise his profile further.Wilders formed his Freedom Party [PVV] - now the country's third largest party - after defecting from the VVD [right-wing liberals] in 2004 and has seen his following grow ever since.Wilders' anti-Islamic and anti-establishment ideas won the PVV 15 per cent of the vote at the 2010 election.Wilders, who remained silent throughout most of the proceedings, argued in his final statement on 6 May that: "The Netherlands is under threat of Islam. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom."He reminded the court of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered in 2002 by a left-wing environmentalist for his political ideas, and Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making comments on Islam."I am here because of what I have said," Wilders stated, "I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo van Gogh, and not me."

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

NEW laws to clamp down on football hate-crime require far more funding, according to the police who will enforce the legislation.MSPs heard from witnesses, including Les Gray of the Scottish Police Federation, on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, which is being pushed through Parliament so that it can be in place for the start of the football season.Mr Gray said the financial provision “did not scratch the surface” of what would be required to “hammer” sectarian behaviour in order to deter such conduct in future.Deputy Justice Minister Roseanna Cunningham was also pinned down on what might constitute an offensive song. Tory John Lamont asked whether the British national anthem or Flower of Scotland could be considered offensive under the new Act.“No,” declared Ms Cunningham, but she said context was everything.She cited the way Rule Britannia had become a sectarian anthem in some quarters, while other conduct could shift into the realm of the offensive depending on context.“I would not regard it as an offensive song, which is exactly why we don’t start defining which songs and listing the songs because it is a matter of facts and circumstances of the case whether something is or is not offensive.“I have seen hundreds of Celtic fans, in a manner which I can only describe as aggressive, making signs of the cross, gesticulating across an open area to Rangers fans.“A sign of the cross is not in itself offensive but in circumstances such as Rangers and Celtic fans meeting each other in a crowded street, it could be construed as something that is offensive.”She said: “I want to remind everybody what we saw during the last football season, scenes which none of us ever wish to see repeated, scenes which were broadcast throughout the world and which shamed Scotland.

“Football is our national game, millions of people are passionate about it but we can’t tolerate the complete corruption of that passion into hate, whether it is mass sectarian chanting or bullets and bombs in the post.”Convener Christine Grahame said the Justice Committee has been “put in a very difficult position” in wishing to examine the Bill on behalf of the public in the timescale proposed.However, Ms Cunningham added: “I don’t rule out the possibility in a few years’ time of revisiting the situation with legislation.”Both Mr Gray and Assistant Chief Constable Campbell Corrigan, who represented the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland, agreed that the new laws would be useful, but Mr Gray said: “I have absolutely no doubt that the financial memorandum is way off the mark. I don’t think £0.5 million to £0.7m will even scratch the surface of what is required.“For the last few years, particularly the last two years, the police service has been engaged actively in removing police officers from football grounds to reduce costs.“We’re now going to have to reverse that trend in order to enforce this legislation properly by bringing more police officers to police these games before, during and after.”Mr Gray said while in the past two to three officers would be sent in to pubs during a football match, enforcing the new laws safely could mean as many as between 20 and 30 officers would be needed.But Mr Corrigan said that a “proportionate response” to the new legislation would ensure it was introduced as officers were trained and he was confident of making it workable.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The tabled bill was drawn up because of 'deep concerns' that Muslim women suffer discrimination under sharia law.

The Christian peer Caroline Cox has waded into controversy again and angered some Muslims, particularly the Sharia Council of Britain, by tabling a bill that claims to address concerns regarding sharia arbitration in Britain. The baroness (the same who extended an invitation to Geert Wilders in 2010) says: "If we don't do something, we are condoning it." The "it" here is the alleged violation by sharia courts of legal parameters that limit them to ruling only in civil cases.
There are two separate issues here that must not be conflated. The first is a matter of scale. We must not be spooked into mobilising the mechanism of the state and sledgehammer a nut. As with Philip Hollobone's bill to ban women in burqas from his constituency, the emotive concerns regarding the face veil escalated the non-issue into one where an egregious and discriminatory law was on the verge of coming to pass. We need to address how widespread a problem "sharia creep" is, while acknowledging the fact that there are some elements of sharia that are inherently incompatible with UK secular law. Sharia courts in the UK only have an advisory capacity and address mainly property and financial matters, and rulings are then only enforceable by civil courts.
However, and this is the second issue, in some cases there might be an element of coercion, particularly where women are concerned. The justification that the resort to sharia tribunals is voluntary is not a convincing one when it comes to women's rights, for there are many ways in which women can be pressurised to keep dealings within the sharia court. Having said that, and this may sound churlish, I am increasingly wary of politicians using isolated incidents and then extrapolating them into a phenomenon, particularly when the flag of women's rights is waved. There have been too many times when the emotive power of concern for women has been hijacked to mobilise opinion for or against a political move.
To expressly state that the intention of the bill is "to tackle the discrimination suffered by Muslim women within the sharia court system" suggests that sharia courts (85 in total across the country) are summarily and consistently victimising women.
The baroness goes further than to suggest this by saying: "We cannot sit here complacently in our red and green benches while women are suffering a system which is utterly incompatible with the legal principles upon which this country is founded." So is the bill entirely based on legal concerns about the potential of the development of "quasi-legal" courts, of any religion, that function outside mainstream UK law, or is it primarily addressing sharia courts? Therein lies the confusion.
Moreover, the main purpose of the bill is to stop sharia courts claiming that they have the right to rule in matters of criminal or family law, allegedly to stop women being "hoodwinked" into thinking that sharia courts are the ultimate arbiter and have more jurisdiction than they do. How widespread an issue is this? Of the sharia courts in the country, how many are claiming and actually ruling on criminal matters? This is a survey that none who have jostled to get behind the bill (One Law for All and the National Secular Society to name two) have conducted or offered to undertake. Technically, the law is already clear on the matter: religious courts can only rule on civil matters. Jewish Beth Din courts have the same scope as sharia arbitration tribunals. But there are "concerns" that the latter are "straying". To get comfortable with this, I would like to see some examples of cases where this has happened. Otherwise this is a bill that seems to preempt a problem that could happen in some cases. And because there are problematic issues with some aspects of sharia law, which are not currently in force, we should apparently be alarmed.
A less inflammatory, and possibly more relevant approach would be a practical one, one that focuses on the technical issues and examines how quasi-legal courts are being accommodated and incorporated into UK law in a way that accommodates both; discarding what is not compatible and allowing for what is permissible, albeit unfamiliar. There is already a sensible separation of civil and criminal matter. But if there are "concerns", perhaps we should examine whether they can be addressed at all or whether the issue of the sharia courts is a red herring – coercing people into following religious rulings on issues can happen outside a religious court. This is something the baroness fails to consider.
Underpinning this debate, as ever with Muslim minority debates, is the problem of integration, and how accommodating certain religious considerations enables and fortifies an isolationist attitude. But we must not let this dictate the agenda and bait people into straying themselves into the realms of discrimination.

Monday, 20 June 2011

A French court on Thursday heard the country's first case against women refusing to obey a new law banning the wearing of Islamic face veils in public. The two women, who wear the niqab, a veil that covers the hair and face with just a slit for the eyes, were ordered to appear before the court in the town of Meaux, about 40 kilometres east of Paris, for going to the local town hall on May 5 with their faces veiled.

Only one of the women — called Hind — appeared at the court, and she was barred from entering after refusing to remove her veil for the duration of the hearing. She offered to undergo an identity check, but this was refused.

Under a new law prohibiting people from concealing their face in public — widely referred to as the ‘burqa ban' because it is aimed at wearers of the Islamic burqa, or full-body covering, and niqab — the women risk a fine of 150 euros and/or being asked to take lessons in citizenship. A person who forces a woman to wear a veil risks a year in prison and 30,000 euros in fines.

The two women were booked by police after showing up at Meaux town hall with a birthday cake for Mayor Jean-Francois Cope, who is also leader of President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative ruling Union for a Popular Majority (UMP). The cake was made of almonds, a word which sounds like the French word for fines (amendes), and was meant as a dig at the government over the timid application by the authorities of the two-month-old law.

While several women have been booked by police, only one has been fined so far, according to Rachid Nekkaz, founder of Don't Touch My Constitution, a group lobbying against the ban.

Hind said she hoped to be fined, so that she could challenge the law, which she sees as an attack on her freedom of religion, in the European Court of Human Rights.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

At least eight new free schools will open their doors this September – and three of them will be religious.

The Department for Education (DfE) named the eight schools which had signed funding agreements – promises of government funding in return for meeting certain conditions. Of these, three are in London, three in other urban areas and two in East Anglia.

The three religious schools are: St Luke’s C of E Primary School, Camden; Eden Primary School, a new Jewish school for Haringey; and the Sikh-ethos Nishkam Free School in Birmingham.

The others with agreements in place are: Bradford Science Academy; Stour Valley Community School in Suffolk; the Free School Norwich; and Batley Grammar School, a private school converting to the new status.

The DfE has received 323 applications to open new schools. In all, 26 schools have been approved to enter the “pre-opening stage”.

Others of these could yet open, however, with officials claiming that at least a dozen will open their doors this September.

Saturday, 18 June 2011

Councils around the country continue to target discretionary transport to so-called “faith schools” in their push to cut spending.

Latest are Essex County Council, Cumbria County Council, Suffolk County Council and Wigan Metro Council, which will totally scrap all but mandatory transport subsidies to those who want to send their children to a religious school from 2012.

Dave Hill, Essex County Council’s executive director for schools, children and families, said in a letter to parents that it was not required by law to provide free buses to faith schools. “There are currently tremendous pressures on Essex County Council’s budget,” he said. “We have completed a significant review of our home to school transport policy to ensure the current policy is equitable, supports the most vulnerable and provides the best value for money. The statutory entitlement to free transport will remain unchanged.”

Last week, Durham County Council approved a raft of changes to school transport, which will mean discretionary spending on free transport to religious schools is stopped completely. Members of the Council’s cabinet also agreed to explore the possibility of setting up self-financing concessionary transport schemes. This would be aimed at ensuring that home-to-school transport remains for those attending faith schools and for rural schools and communities, the Council said. It will now be seeking to work with schools, diocesan authorities, parents and other groups to do this.

Meanwhile, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth has written to the Isle of Wight Council leader expressing “dismay” at proposals to end free travel for religious schools. The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis said removing transport subsidies could “severely impact the future and the flourishing of Christ the King School”. Councillor David Pugh, leader of the council, said all pupils should be treated equally, regardless of religion. A consultation on plans to end the blanket subsidy runs until 4 July.

Bishop Hollis said taking away the travel subsidy would “make life very difficult and may result in families deciding that they cannot afford to send their children to the faith school of their choice”. He added: “I urge you and the council to think again before implementing a proposal which could jeopardise the flourishing and development of Christ the King School.”

The discriminatory aspect that the NSS has highlighted for years is now echoed by Councillor Pugh: “It is not equitable or affordable in the current climate to offer a unique entitlement of free transport to parents and children of a certain religion, which is not made available to others. I’m confident that the vast majority of parents support our approach on this. A lot of councils have already made the change and in a way we’re catching up.”

Friday, 17 June 2011

In answer to the question “Do you believe in God?” 92% of Americans answered in the affirmative, according to a new Gallup poll.

The first time Gallup asked this question was in 1944: 96% said yes. The last time was in 1967, when 98% said they believed in God. In 1976 Gallup changed the wording of the question to “Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?” 94% said yes back then.

Although the figure has remained high, it could change in years to come.

Among 18-29 year olds, just 84% said they believed in God, compared to 94% for all older age groups. Gallup writes: “Those under 30 are significantly less likely than older Americans to say they believe in God. It remains to be seen whether these young Americans will move toward a belief in God as they age, or instead stick with their current beliefs.” Statisticians in the UK have concluded that, in the UK, the pattern has been the latter rather than the former.

Thursday, 16 June 2011

The Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, intervened in the trial of an expenses-fiddling peer in the hope of getting him spared a jail sentence.

Ms Hudson-Wilkin wrote to the judge presiding over the trial of Lord Taylor, who was convicted of fraudulently claiming expenses of £11,000, appealing for him to be spared prison, saying she would help oversee a community service order.

Fortunately, the judge did not listen to this special pleading and as a consequence, Lord Taylor was jailed for a year.

Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said: “It is extraordinary that this cleric imagines she can use her position to wangle special treatment from the law. It is just as well that her appeal fell on deaf ears – there must never be different rules of justice for anyone, whatever their religion, race or status.

Lord Taylor now faces financial ruin with a confiscation hearing in December to seek the repayment of thousands of pounds of fraudulently claimed expenses not covered by the prosecution. He is likely to remain a member of the House of Lords. Peers can be expelled only by an Act of Parliament.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Occasionally, the aims of the NSS coincide with those of some Christian campaigners. We sometimes join forces with Catholics for Choice or Ekklesia. We’re even supporting a Christian Institute campaign to resist the march of sharia law in the UK.

Now we’re supporting an effort to amend Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 in an effort to protect freedom of speech.

As it stands, the Act outlaws “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” and behaviour that is “likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.

Edward Leigh, the Christian MP, who has tabled the amendment in parliament, said that it is the subjectivity of the term “insulting” that is the problem. “I believe that removing the word ‘insulting’ would be enough to stop Section 5 being misused and generating a chilling effect on free speech,” he told the House of Commons.

“Section 5 is a classic example of a law that was brought in for one thing, fair enough, to deal long ago with a particular state of affairs, but in practice is being used for something quite different. It was brought in to tackle hooliganism, but is increasingly used by police to silence peaceful protesters and street preachers.”

The law has been used as a justification to arrest street evangelists who shout out biblical condemnations of homosexuals, but it has also been used against other campaigners – an animal rights activist was arrested after someone took exception to her using a toy seal with red paint on it to protest about seal culling.

Liberal Democrat president, Tim Farron, and the Labour party’s Tom Watson, a former Government Minister, together with six other MPs from across the parties have signed up to the amendment. NSS honorary associate Dr Evan Harris has also spoken out in its support.

When the NSS was approached by its proponents to support this amendment, we had no hesitation. Although the Christians who are at the forefront of the initiative want to prevent the arrest of street preachers for offending homosexuals, we want to ensure that it also works the other way round, and that religious people can no longer use their “insulted sensibilities” as a means of silencing their critics.

As secularists, it is our duty to ensure that the law is fair to everybody. As defenders of free speech we have to argue for the right of religious people to insult and criticise us as much as we argue for the right to freely criticise them, without fear of a visit from the police. Free speech is not free if it is available only to some and not others.

In the interests of open debate, we have to support changes that will stop the law intervening over hurt feelings and offence-taking. Indeed, if you’ve ever tried to engage with proselytising Muslims about their religion, the first thing that will be heard when anything vaguely critical of Islam is mentioned, is “I find that really offensive.”

At best that is usually the end of the conversation and at worst it will herald a knock on the door from PC Plod.

Unfortunately, changing Section 5 of the Public Order Act won’t be of help to you if your employer disciplines or sacks you for vigorously pooh-poohing your Islamist or Christian colleagues’ attempts at evangelising you at work. Answering back against their proselytising could find you accused of harassing them on grounds of their religion.

One interesting sideline that this attempt to extend freedom of speech has revealed is how the NSS is regarded in some evangelical Christian circles.

After I had been interviewed about the campaign on Premier Christian Radio, my support was noted by the influential Christian website Lifesite News, with these comments:

The MPs’ attempt to ameliorate the situation in Britain has received the surprise backing of one of the country’s most virulent anti-Christian campaigners. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society (NSS), has said that there should be no objection to a change to make it more difficult for people to involve the law when they feel offended.

Sanderson, who is one of the leading voices in Britain to abolish all public acknowledgement of Christianity, told media, “I think that most people who value free speech, and that’s most democrats, would say that it’s common sense to say that you cannot take offence and then call in the law to say my feelings must be protected.

I do not think that I have ever argued to “abolish all public acknowledgement of Christianity” and nor do I regard myself as “a virulent anti-Christian campaigner”.

As secularists, the NSS argues for a public space that is open to everyone, without prejudice. But if it is to be a genuinely free and open, it cannot be dominated by one opinion, religious or otherwise.

In a democracy, individual Christians have as much right as anyone else to participate in public life (as, indeed, Edward Leigh and many other Christians do, in Parliament) and to advocate for their cause.

But Christianity as an ideology cannot be integrated into a secular state. Nor can any other religious belief. That does not mean to say that we are arguing to end people’s right to have a faith or to practise it within the law.

In Britain at the moment, Christianity, as practised by the Church of England, is the official state-recognised religion. But that must change. Britain is no longer a mono-faith nation. Increasingly it is a country of no religion at all, and paradoxically has perhaps more other religions in Britain than any other country.

That doesn’t mean that Christianity must be banished from all public discourse and it does not mean that Christians must be disadvantaged or suffer discrimination as individuals. But it does mean that clerics, imams, archbishops, rabbis and all the rest will not have an automatic right to direct law-making. They will not have privileged access to the public purse, nor any special concessions in equality law beyond those required by EU directives.

When you have enjoyed these perks for centuries, the prospect of having them taken away will, of course, feel like discrimination. But it is not discrimination. It is a fair and equal sharing of resources in society and a respect for the needs of smaller and less influential groups.

Whether it is the removal of transport subsidies to religious schools (which cost all taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year but are only available to the privileged few who happen to claim a particular religious affiliation) or the ending of the participation of Anglican bishops in the law-making process, it needs to be done if we are to be just to all.

This is not anti-Christian, it is pro-everybody else. If only religious people would listen, they would realise that secularism is not their enemy but might one day, as religious diversity increases, be their best friend.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

A Scottish teacher is suing Glasgow City Council after she was forced out of her job at a Roman Catholic school because she defines herself as an agnostic.

Anne McShane, a supply teacher employed by Glasgow City Council, was not able to continue working at St Thomas Aquinas Secondary School in Glasgow's Jordanhill as a priest refused to give her a reference.

After starting her post in January 2010 Ms McShane claims she was told by bosses she was unable to continue working there. She has now lodged a claim of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief to the employment tribunals.

Glasgow City Council contests the claim and denies any discrimination. After a pre-hearing review employment, judge Shona MacLean refused the council's request the claim should be struck out and ruled the tribunal should hear Ms McShane's case.

The hearing was told there is a requirement that a teacher appointed to any post in a council-owned Roman Catholic school must be approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

Ms McShane, who was christened and educated in the Roman Catholic faith, was offered the post in 2009 and began working in January 2010 while the application was processed.

After her parish priest allegedly refused to give her a reference, Ms McShane turned to a lawyer. But, the school learned at the end of January Ms McShane's application to the church was to be declined. The hearing was told Ms McShane was informed the council "could not continue to allow her to teach in the post".

Ms McShane said she received a letter from the church stating "if you are Catholic, I require a reference from the parish priest who sees you at Mass".

After asking for a review of the church's decision, Ms McShane was allegedly told: "In looking at your application, I see no priest's reference, I therefore find no evidence of your practise".

Monday, 13 June 2011

THE Roman Catholic Church has been bedevilled by allegations of child abuse in recent years and accusations it had failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem within its ranks.
After the scale of abuse in Ireland became clear with the publication of damning inquiry results in 2009, the leader of the church in England and Wales said those who perpetrated abuse should be held to account “no matter how long ago it happened”.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols said: “Every time there is a single incident of abuse in the Catholic Church, it is a scandal...I hope these things don’t happen again, but I hope they’re never a matter of indifference.”
Brother Ambrose O’Brien was sacked for abusing boys at the St William’s home, in Market Weighton, East Yorkshire, in 1965 but it appears it was there and then that accountability ended. Whether what happened afterwards was down to incompetence, indifference or worse will, probably, never be fully known.
That the police were not involved then is, perhaps, not surprising given different social attitudes towards abuse 40 or more years ago.
But that Ambrose O’Brien went on to become Father Joseph O’Brien, ordained by the same Middlesbrough Diocese which held the record of his dismissal, is, at the very least, surprising.
The dismissal of Brother Ambrose – the name he took at the time as a member of the De La Salle Brotherhood – was formally reported to the diocese, which had overall responsibility for the St William’s home through the Middlesbrough Diocesan Rescue Society.
But his application to the diocese to become a priest in 1972 was accepted, after De La Salle, the Catholic lay order which ran the home, failed to mention the dismissal when it was asked for a reference.
Consequently, Brother Ambrose O’Brien emerged as Father Joseph O’Brien in 1975, and went on to serve in Middlesbrough and then, through the 1980s and 1990s, in North Yorkshire.
Whether there were further allegations against him – or what they were – is unclear. In 2002 a former brother who worked at the home, Noel Hartnett, told Humberside Police, who were investigating wider abuse allegations at St William’s, that he had been approached by another priest who was compiling a dossier on Father O’Brien because there were further allegations of abuse. He also told detectives about Father O’Brien’s dismissal, which he had witnessed at first hand.
If Humberside Police had interviewed Father O’Brien in 2002, the full picture may have emerged then. Whether the diocese would have acted is not known, though by this point Father O’Brien had retired four years earlier in 1998. In the event, Father O’Brien was not interviewed and his history remained below the radar.
However, Father O’Brien’s history would have been difficult to ignore when his dismissal formed part of the evidence in an ongoing compensation case by former residents of St William’s over alleged wide-scale sexual and physical abuse at the home.
The report on the dismissal – disclosed by the diocese during the proceedings – was cited by Judge Hawkesworth QC in his High Court judgment in November 2009 that the diocese, rather than De La Salle, should be held responsible for the home.
Two months later, Father O’Brien died in his home city of Hull aged 87.
His dismissal for child abuse was not mentioned by the diocese when it publicly recorded his passing and gave details of his funeral Mass. It has never publicly acknowledged his history until now.
The Yorkshire Post approached Archbishop Nichols for his views on the story of Father O’Brien. He declined to comment.

Saturday, 11 June 2011

A parliamentary Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords that would stop sharia courts in this country claiming that they have legal jurisdiction over criminal or family law. At meetings launching the Bill to the press and for peers, the Baroness tabling it was joined on platform by Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society who also spoke. This demonstrated the broad base of support for the Bill, which included religious and women’s groups. The One Law for All group was represented and copies of their publication One Law for All was distributed to participants. Both meetings were lively and constructive.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, was introduced into the House of Lords by Baroness Caroline Cox (independent). Its intention is to tackle the discrimination suffered by Muslim women within the Sharia court system. The Bill, which applies to all arbitration tribunals, will firmly outlaw the practice of giving women’s testimony half the weight of men’s. The Bill addresses human rights issues and does not mention Islam.

The Bill’s proposals include:

A new criminal offence of ‘falsely claiming legal jurisdiction’ for any person who adjudicates upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts. The maximum penalty would be five years in prison.

Explicitly stating in legislation that sex discrimination law applies directly to arbitration tribunal proceedings. Discriminatory rulings may be struck down under the Bill.

Requiring public bodies to inform women that they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is unrecognised by English law.

Explicitly stating on the face of legislation that arbitration tribunals may not deal with matters of family law (such as legally recognised divorce or custody of children) or criminal law (such as domestic violence).

Making it easier for a civil court to set aside a consent order if a mediation settlement agreement or other agreement was reached under duress.

Explicitly stating on the face of legislation that a victim of domestic abuse is a witness to an offence and therefore should be expressly protected from witness intimidation.

Lady Cox said: “Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My Bill seeks to preserve that standard. I have no desire to interfere in the internal theological affairs of religious groups, and my Bill does not do that. My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal, or ‘quasi-legal’, systems taking root in our nation. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for our English courts alone.

“Through these proposals, I want to make it perfectly clear in the law that discrimination against women shall not be allowed within arbitration. I am deeply concerned about the treatment of Muslim women by Sharia Courts. We must do all that we can to make sure they are free from any coercion, intimidation or unfairness.

“There is considerable evidence that many women are suffering in many ways (such as domestic violence or unequal access to divorce) due to discriminatory practices in our country today and we cannot continue to condone this situation. Many women say, ‘we came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here’.”

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “Laws should not impinge on religious freedom, nor should courts judge on theological matters. But by the same token democratically determined and human rights compliant law must always take precedence over the law of any religion. Yet religious law can already be enforced under English law through the Arbitration Act and that is what this Bill is seeking to address.

“Religious arbitration has already been outlawed in two Canadian provinces and under this new Bill the Arbitration Act would not be able to determine family or criminal matters nor agreements that are discriminatory against women. A nation could be defined by those subject to one law. This Bill aims once more to give every citizen equal protection by the same just law – one law for all.”

Anne Marie Waters of the One Law for All campaign commented: “We welcome any Bill that can halt the advancement of sharia courts and religious tribunals in Britain and promote equal rights. It is particularly important that women are informed of their rights under British law, and that domestic violence or other family or criminal law matters are not dealt with by sharia-based bodies – these put women at a grave disadvantage and treat children as the property of their fathers.”

Friday, 10 June 2011

An unnamed husband and wife claim they were forced to move to Britain from France

The unnamed husband and wife claim they were forced to move to Britain from France by the new law which prevents women wearing the veil in public.

They want £10,000 damages because the “unnecessary, disproportionate and unlawful” ban breaches their right to free movement across the European Union.

Now based in the West Midlands, they are trying to overturn the law at the European Court of HumanRights in Strasbourg.

The couple are represented by lawyers from Britain’s Immigration Advisory Service which gets an annual £15million in taxpayers’ cash.

Robina Shah, a Birmingham-based solicitor, has instructed top immigration and public law barrister Ramby de Mello to fight their landmark case.

But last night, Ukip MEP Gerard Batten blamed the costly “mess” on European laws designed to over-ride domestic law.

We are in a mess because we allow EU law to supersede UK law

“We are in a mess because we allow EU law to supersede UK law, and the result is that your internal affairs are in trouble,” he said.

“It’s a nonsense. It should be up to the French to sort out whether they want to ban the burkha in their country or not, and someone should challenge it from within.

“About 10 per cent of the population of France are Muslim. Why don’t they club together and pay for someone to challenge it.”

According to Ms Shah the couple have two daughters and want to remain anonymous in case they suffer “hostility”.

Documents lodged in Strasbourg say they “wish to reside and work in France” because they have family there.

But the French ban – which includes the full-length face-covering burkha , and the niqab, a face veil that leaves only eye openings – made it impossible.

They say that the husband, the main applicant, “expects and instructs” his wife to wear the burkha but risks prosecution if he crosses the Channel.

He does not force his wife to wear the niqab but “expects her to do so in public, in keeping with his religious and cultural expectation and his authority as her husband”.

Their legal papers say she “respects and follows” her husband’s instructions “out of her own free will” and wants to cover up “in keeping with her faith”.

When she wears the niqab, “she feels at inner peace with herself and her surroundings and is cocooned from the outer world”. At such times she can “concentrate on her innermost thoughts” and “manifest her religious and personal beliefs in public places”.

Ms Shah added: “The case clearly is of importance to my clients. As a result of the ban they have had to leave their country of nationality, as the ban restricts their freedom of choice, and that of their ­daughters.”

The Immigration Advisory Service bills itself as the UK’s “largest charity providing representation and advice in immigration and asylum law”.

Its lawyers mainly represents asylum seekers and other migrants who cannot afford to hire solicitors ­privately.

It receives approximately £15million – a hefty chunk of its funding – in taxpayers’ cash, through the Legal Services Commission which hands out legal aid.

But a Legal Services spokesman said that even if taxpayer-funded IAS lawyers were representing the couple, that service would not be paid for by legal aid.

He added that they only gave legal aid to cases involving British law and concerned with immigration.

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

An Islamic preacher told students it was difficult to argue with the views of Osama bin Laden and said “terrorism works” in a speech at the university attended by the Detroit bomber, it can be disclosed.

Referring to bin Laden in his 2005 UCL speech, Mr Green said: "His rational [sic] is ? we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that?"

Abdur Raheem Green, a Muslim convert and former public schoolboy, told students at University College London that a “permanent state of war exists between the people of Islam and the people who opposed Islam”.

He gave the speech, seen by The Daily Telegraph, to the university’s Islamic society while Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the Detroit bomber, was a student there in 2005.

A review by UCL into the Abdulmutallab case failed to analyse speeches made by the preacher and other visitors. It concluded that “speakers with controversial but not illegal views were welcome to the extent that they could be expected to stimulate debate”.

The disclosure follows a statement by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in an interview with this newspaper, in which she said there had been “complacency” by universities about Islamic extremism.

The Government’s Prevent strategy to combat extremism will say it is “concerned that some universities and colleges have failed to engage” with the project, and cite a study showing that at least 55 per cent of institutions did not frequently engage with authorities running the scheme.

Qasim Rafiq, a spokesman for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, invited Mr Green to speak at UCL along with two speakers from the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and another who has supported the Taliban.
Since then, Mr Green has been invited to give lectures at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, Queen Mary and Bart’s and at UCL.
Referring to bin Laden in his 2005 UCL speech, Mr Green, who claims he is not an extremist, said: “His rational [sic] is … we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that?”
Citing the IRA, he added: “The other thing is that it seems that terrorism works. We certainly have precedent.”
Saqib Sattar, a trustee of the Islamic Education and Research Academy, where Mr Green works, said: “The aim of the talk was to combat indiscriminate violence and terrorism and not advocate it.”
A spokesman for UCL said the inquiry had been aware of the speech but added: “Provided the law is observed, we do not operate a 'no platform’ policy in relation to speakers with controversial, distasteful or even repugnant views.”

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

A North London Church of England school has been criticised by an independent schools inspector for refusing a place to a girl because her parents didn’t take part in church activities – something they were unable to do because they were taking care of another of their children who was disabled.

St Paul’s Church of England School in Mill Hill was also slated for its inadequate appeals procedures, which the inspector said were structured incorrectly and in such a way as to “dissuade” parents from appealing against decisions.

The inspector was also critical of the fact that the chairman of the school’s governors, Reverend Michael Bishop, was not only responsible for writing references for prospective parents but then judging them when they were considered for a place. The inspector said this was a clear conflict of interest. Rev Bishop has since been replaced as head of governors.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “The Church of England repeatedly assures us that they operate their privileged entry criteria fairly. This shows that often they don’t. It still shocks me that parents are forced to engage in church activities in order to get a vicar’s letter that will get them a place in a state-funded school. It is blatant religious discrimination that would not be permitted in any other context."

The new draft Schools Admissions Code, published today, allows religious schools to prioritise children on the basis of their own or parents’ religious activities, as laid out by the religious authority. At the same time, the Code prohibits schools from giving priority to children on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may give to the school or any associated organisation, such as the local church. It therefore remains unclear as to how exactly ‘religious activities’ are defined by religious authorities.

A consultation on the new Admissions Code was launched today by the Education Secretary, Michael Gove. The consultation will last 12 weeks.